1

Australian Senate, Occasional Lecture Series

Alex Oliver

Are Australians disenchanted with democracy?

7 March 2014

(Check against delivery)

This week is an interesting week to be talking about democracy. There are popular uprisings in the

Ukraine and Russia’s dramatic incursions into Crimea. Anti-government protests in Thailand

continue. Turkey’s democratization process falters, with a deepening corruption scandal engulfing its

prime minister. Cambodia’s post-election strife still simmers, with protests suppressed and human

rights trampled. Egypt’s early attempts at democracy have proved an abject failure.

This all sounds far removed from Australia. Geographically, of course, they are. But they are

examples of democracy under fire and faltering, and that’s where Australia, incredibly, comes in.

Over the next few minutes, I’m going to attempt to explain why.

------------------------

The Lowy Institute has been conducting public opinion polls on foreign policy issues for a decade,

and this year we will publish our tenth annual Lowy Institute Poll. Over the years, I and former poll

directors have asked hundreds of questions of Australians of all ages, from all states, and all walks of

life.

We’ve asked questions about the international economy, climate change, important bilateral

relationships with nations like Indonesia, China, and the US, and attitudes to the rise of Asia. We’ve

asked about the sorts of issues which Australians see as threats to this nation, from climate change to

terrorism. Controversially, at the height of the Bush presidency in 2005, Australians ranked US

foreign policy equally with Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to Australia.

We’ve asked questions about Australians’ use of media in a rapidly changing media landscape, and

about hotly debated issues like asylum seekers and foreign investment.

But one of the most thought provoking findings from all of our decade-long polling has been on

Australians’ attitudes towards democracy.

2

These findings came almost by accident. We had been conducting opinion polls in some of the other

nations in our region such as Indonesia, Fiji and most recently, India.

In each of those countries, we asked a different range of questions, depending on the particular

national and bilateral context. One common question, however, was one which has been asked in

other countries by respected US non-profit global polling organisation, Pew Research Center, which

has been conducting multi-nation opinion polls since the early 1990s.

The Pew ‘democracy question’ asked people to choose which statement most closely matched their

own opinion:

• The first option was: ‘Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government’

• The second was: ‘In some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable’

• And the final option was: ‘For someone like me, it doesn’t matter what kind of government

we have’.

Fergus Hanson included this democracy question in three separate Lowy Institute polls in 2011 and

2012, in Fiji, Indonesia and India.

[Slide 2] The results were markedly different across the three countries. Support for democracy in

Fiji, under the un-democratic Bainimarama regime, was surprisingly slim. In India, with an older and

more robust democracy, it was significantly stronger.

Fergus found these results intriguing and decided to include the democracy question in the 2012

Australian poll. My guess is that he assumed the results in Australia would be considerably different

in a nation whose western democratic traditions went back to the beginning of the last century.

The results were surprising and confronting.

[Slide 3] As it turns out, our 2012 poll showed that Australians were less supportive of democracy

than people in India (a newer democracy than ours) and Indonesia (an emerging democracy), and

ahead of only Fiji (not a democracy at all).

3

Only 60% of Australians of voting age said that ‘democracy is preferable to any other kind of

government’. Nearly a quarter said that in some circumstances, a non-democratic government could

be preferable. 15% said it didn’t matter what kind of government we have.

Even more challenging was the response of the younger age group – the 18-29 year olds. Only 39% of

them felt that democracy was the most preferable form of government. More than half either didn’t

care, or thought a non-democratic system might work better in some circumstances.

Of course, these results were controversial. They generated a good deal of discussion among the

commentariat. Some thought our results couldn’t possibly be right, that there must be some

statistical skew in our survey sample of 1000-plus adults, that we were asking the wrong question, or

that the context of the poll caused people to misunderstand the question.

[Slide 4] So, just to be sure, we asked exactly the same question in our 2013 Poll. This time, only 59%

of all adults said that democracy was preferable to any other kind of government. And for the

younger age group (the 18-29s whose responses were so surprising the year before):

[Slide 5] Less than half of these Gen Ys thought that democracy was preferable, and almost half

(adding the orange and turquoise boxes on the right hand column) thought that it either didn’t

matter, or that a non-democratic system might work better. Australians under 30 and over 30 put

very different values on democracy.

Our findings (if you’ll permit me to use a label which roughly aligns with the 18-29 year olds in our

polling) were that Gen Y in Australia were significantly less committed to democracy than their peers

in India and Indonesia, and around as enthusiastic as Fijian young people about democracy.

In India, for example, 71% of young people thought democracy was the preferable form of

government. Compared with 48% of young Australians. That’s a dramatic statistical difference. In

Indonesia, the comparison was almost as striking, with two thirds of young people saying democracy

was very important, compared with less than half of young Australians.

These democracy findings do not stand as isolated results in our polls. In our 2011 and 2012 polls we

also asked in all four countries (Australia, Indonesia, India and Fiji) about the attractiveness of other

4

western liberal values: the right to a media free from censorship, the right to freely express oneself,

the right to a fair trial and the right to vote in national elections.

All of these rights were highly valued in all four countries. 90% of Australians strongly agreed with

the importance of the right to vote in elections.

Which led us to wonder: do Australians not equate the right to vote with the principles of

democracy?

The results posed other big questions: why do such a large proportion of Australians – whether

young or old – not seem to value democracy as the most preferable form of government? Is this a

phenomenon just for Australia, or are there democracies in other countries facing similarly existential

questions with the waning of interest in the democratic ideal? And if so, why, and what could be

done?

[Slide 6] As luck would have it, I am backed up this week by no less than The Economist in a six-page

cover article on what afflicts democracy worldwide. I’ll get back to its excellent argument later. In the

meantime, it’s a little short on the detailed evidence behind the theory, and there’s quite a bit of that

to be found.

Starting with research in other countries on support for democracy. A large study in Canada in 2012

surveyed 1500 Canadians on democracy and governance, as part of a very significant survey of 26

nations and nearly 41,000 people in the Americas.

In a format very similar to our own question on democracy, Canadians were given the statement

‘democracy may have its problems, but it is better than any other form of government’. In 2012, only

61% agreed or strongly agreed – almost exactly the number who chose the very similar statement

posed in our Australian poll (60%).

Interestingly, less than 50% of young Canadians under 30 agreed that democracy was better than any

other form of government – again, a result very similar to our own in Australia.

5

And in another very nice piece of timing for me, the United Nations last week released the results of

what is thought to be the largest global survey ever, conducted by the UN Millennium campaign, the

UNDP and the Overseas Development Institute among others.

The survey asked people to choose six factors out of a possible 16 which would improve their lives

and those of their families. 1.4 million people have already responded.

Overwhelmingly, the results show that people want a good education. They also prioritise better

healthcare and better job opportunities. The fourth highest response was for ‘an honest and

responsive government’. However, ‘political freedoms’ came third last of the 16 factors which people

felt would improve their lives.

This suggests the same sort of disconnect between freedoms and democratic government which we

have seen in our Australian polling work. The link seems to be missing between the concepts of good

government, democracy and political freedoms. The proposition that it is difficult to have one of these

without the others seems to have escaped not only Australians but their counterparts around the

world.

[Slide 7] What’s behind this perplexingly low level of support for democracy?

When we released our results in 2012, there was considerable conjecture about the possible reasons.

Some of the theories advanced were these: firstly, that democracy has become the victim of its own

success: it is taken for granted by a post-Cold War generation which has never witnessed any real

ideological competitor to democracy. The second hypothesis was that political freedoms are shunted

behind other priorities in a capitalist and consumerist society. Thirdly, that nations with different

political systems, particularly in our region, are seen as successful despite being non-democratic, and

present a somewhat viable, even attractive, alternative to our imperfect democratic system. Next, that

Australians, and particularly young Australians, were increasingly being turned off by the tone of

political discourse in Australia. And finally, that civics education was lacking in our schools today, or

that it fails to engage younger generations in conversations about the democratic system in all its

glorious imperfection.

6

I’d like to take each of these hypotheses and examine them one by one, though I’ll deal with a few

quickly before getting to the thorny ones at the end.

[Slide 8] Firstly, the idea posed by a policy analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies, Benjamin

Herscovitch, responding to our first poll results on the democracy question in 2012. He advanced the

intriguing theory that “democracy may actually be a victim of its own success.” That it is

undervalued precisely because it is flourishing worldwide and has effectively prevailed over its

ideological adversaries.

This is worth looking at: is democracy such a standard model for development, so much the norm,

that it is being taken for granted? Has it lost its gloss and become, as Herscovitch argues, “an almost

mundane and commonplace political institution”?

[Slide 9] The work of Freedom House suggests that democracy is indeed becoming the norm,

worldwide.

Freedom House’s annual ‘Freedom in the World index’ has charted the spread of democracy since

1972. In the 40 years between 1972 and 2012, the number of ‘free countries’ in the world more than

doubled, so that now 90 of the 200 odd nations of the world are genuinely free – with broad scope for

open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life,

and an independent media.

As a proportion of world’s nations, free countries have increased significantly.

On this map:

• Green nations are ranked as free

• Yellow as partly free

• And purple as not free

In 2012, the number of electoral democracies stood at 118 of 195 countries surveyed, or more than half

the world’s nations.

Herscovitch argues that this thriving democracy is a more valid explanation than other simplistic

arguments such as capitalism, increasing consumerism or GenY flippancy. Much of the world’s adult

7

population has not experienced world wars or the Cold War. What they did see was the collapse of

the Soviet Union and the victory of democracy over Marxism and authoritarianism there.

For these younger generations, says Herscovitch, democracy is seen as a given.

[Slide 10] To the second possible reason.

It may seem overly simplistic, but it has been raised by academics, commentators and politicians

around the western world. The argument for this theory is that our materialistic society – thriving on

capitalism and consumerism – has raised generations in unprecedented prosperity, generations which

see themselves primarily as investors and consumers.

It’s easy to imagine Gen Y, growing up with myriad gadgets, from iphones to Xbox, Gameboys and

Wii, distracted from a focus on civil and political freedoms.

In 2012, a gender-bending model named Jeffree Starr posted a status update on his facebook page,

which read: “we live in a world where losing your phone is more dramatic than losing your

virginity", and generated more than a million facebook "likes". I’m being facetious, of course, but one

wonders where ‘losing your vote’ might fall within this hierarchy of disasters for the facebook

generation.

[Slide 11] Here is a third possible reason for these ambiguous feelings about democracy.

After our Poll was released in 2012, a journalist interviewed students at Melbourne University about

why their generation seemed dismissive of democracy. One of them suggested that:

“China is a society and a state that functions without democracy, so is it bad? You can’t just judge it

(because it’s non democratic). It’s whatever works for that culture.”

This was thought-provoking for me. In our region, we have examples of what appear to be successful

non-democracies – such as Singapore and China. Both are economic powerhouses which have

transformed themselves within the space of a generation.

Is it possible that we are witnessing a generation who are aware of these different political systems

and their successes, and who are consequently less wedded to the ideal of democracy as the only

8

viable form of government for a successful nation? And how do they define that success? Is it

primarily in economic terms? (and so I refer you back to hypothesis 2).

[Slide 12] The next possible factor, raised directly in response to our poll results by seasoned stalwarts

like Laurie Oakes, was that the tone of today’s political discourse has significantly worsened, and

turned people off politics completely. Senator John Faulkner has spoken of the “corrosive effect on

our democracy of the increasing distrust of politicians and the increasing cynicism about politicians”.

He refers to cases from his own side of politics like that of Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson.

[Slide 13] Two examples of events in the last couple of years illustrate the extremes of current modes

of political discourse: the first - the Prime Minister’s Misogyny speech in 2012 which was viewed

over 2 ½ million times on YouTube and went ‘viral’ around the world - was made possible via the

internet. The second example to hit the headlines was an extremely crude mock menu, created on a

prehistoric-era piece of paper and photocopied at a restaurant.

The first episode – the ‘misogyny’ speech – suggests quite a high level of political engagement, at least

with the issue of gender and politics which it raised. But both examples expose the political process to

accusations that it is too aggressively adversarial, tawdry, brutal. Because of those deep flaws, the

argument goes, Australians of voting age may tune out of political discussion and be discouraged

from engaging in the democratic process. Perhaps this is the exception to the rule that all publicity is

good publicity.

Just examining this possibility – that it might be the tone of political conversation that seem to be

turning the nation’s voters off democracy – I searched for data on this point. It turns out there is a

great deal of data on political engagement not only in Australia but in other places around the world,

where there are similar currents of concern about the durability of democracy when support is

waning for the institutions which uphold it.

[Slide 14] Starting here in Australia. The ANU has been conducting a study on Australian elections

since 1987, collating data going back to 1967. This chart shows the extent to which a large sample of

Australians on the electoral roll have followed Australian elections in the mass media since 1967.

9

So while interest in elections fluctuates widely, there has been something of a trend downwards since

the late 60s, followed by a slight uptick in the last decade – with a significant contribution from news

found via the internet.

Many of the other markers – ‘watched the leaders’ debates’, ‘interest in the election’, ‘care who wins

the election’, ‘discussed the election campaign with others’, all show a similar overall downward

trend since the mid 1990s, although some of the markers were low in the 60s and early 70s as well.

[Slide 15] A different survey last year, the “Citizens Agenda” from the University of Melbourne’s

Centre for Advancing Journalism, found that Australians in 2013 felt that the tone of the political

debate has indeed become noticeably worse than it was in the past.

The question they were asked was:

“Thinking now about the tone of political debate in Australia at the present time: would you say it is

noticeably better now than it has usually been in the past; not much different now from how it has

usually been in the past, or it is noticeably worse now than it has usually been in the past?”

As you can see from the size of the orange slice of pie, a majority of Australians think the tone of the

debate has deteriorated.

In the same study, researchers probed the level of confidence of the Australian public in various civil

society institutions: the Federal government, the legal system, the print press, television, and

universities. They asked Australians what sort of confidence they had in those institutions.

[Slide 16] In results which may vex those who work in this place, the ‘Federal government’ scored

only equally with ‘television’, and only marginally ahead of the ‘(print) press’.

Confidence in government lagged significantly behind confidence in the legal system, and

universities scored most highly in levels of confidence, with nearly four in five saying they had a

great deal or quite a lot of confidence in them.

Less than a third of Australians of voting age expressed confidence in the federal government.

10

This prompted me investigate whether this is just a phenomenon exclusive to Australians jaded from

years of exposure to our particular brand of domestic politics, or whether it is replicated in other

countries. The findings about support for democracy in other western nations such as Canada suggest

that diminishing levels of confidence in its institutions may be one of the key drivers in the erosion of

support for democracy.

The Americas survey from which I quoted earlier asked questions about trust in democratic and civil

society institutions, ranging from the Church, the armed forces, the police, justice system, parliament,

right down to politicians. While the categories and questions were of course different, it was striking

to see that trust in national parliaments and political parties languished at 30 and 40 percentage

levels, right at the bottom of the list of 12 institutions. In Canada, trust in political parties was at the

bottom of a list of nine institutions, behind even the media.

In the US, when Americans were asked various questions about respect for political institutions, pride

in their political system, and whether their political institutions protected basic human rights, the US

registered only very bare averages on those issues in comparison with other countries in the

Americas.

So there are echoes of the Australian phenomenon in other western nations. There is a sense of

declining levels of trust in the institutions of our democracies.

[Slide 17] The other important question raised by our findings was about the attitudes of youth. What

was driving the even lower levels of support for democracy amongst young Australians?

Looking for studies on youth and their trust in political and civil society institutions to complement

the data I’ve on adults in both Australia and other western democracies, I found a significant study

conducted with school age children by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting

Authority in 2010.

It surveyed around 13,000 school children in Year 6 and 10 to assess the impact of civics and

citizenships educational programs in Australian schools.

The results from 7,000 year 6 students and over 6,400 year 10 students give an interesting picture.

11

At year 6, the younger group, more than half the 7,000 students assessed expressed either quite a lot

or complete trust in political parties, Federal Parliament and State/Territory parliaments. There were

strong levels of trust in law courts and the police. Only the media engendered little trust in a majority

of Year 6 students.

[Slide 18] However, by the time they got to year 10, the levels of trust in those civic institutions had

eroded considerably. The only institutions which registered significant levels of trust were law courts

and the Police. Australian political parties were trusted very little, and Parliaments at both levels

recorded only marginally positive levels of trust.

And those levels of trust are consistent with the lack of confidence that adult Australians, and indeed

adults in other western nations, have in the political institutions in their own countries.

[Slide 19] And so to civics education. What’s going on with it, and is it one of the answers?

Reacting to our 2012 Poll, an editorial in the Age newspaper in Melbourne argued that for democracy

to be sustained, it is necessary to have a citizenry which cherishes democratic values and which

comprehends what would be lost if representative institutions and the rule of law were to disappear.

The editorial pointed to the Poll’s other findings that the western liberal values of a right to a fair trial,

the right to vote and the right to freedom of expression seemed to be more highly valued than the

democratic system of government itself. It expressed alarm that the connection between the

possession and protection of those rights and a democratic system of government no longer seems

clear to people. That those rights – to vote, to a fair trial, to freedom of speech – only have a secure

foundation when governments are accountable to the people. For that accountability, citizens need to

participate in the political process. To sustain the democracy that permits that, civics education is

fundamental.

Amanda Lohrey, in an article in The Monthly magazine in 2012, argued that Australians, and

particularly young Australians, hold naïve and simplistic views about politics. She pointed out that

the reality, and the virtue, of our Westminster system is that it is “adversarial”; it is “institutionalised

squabble’” and we are the beneficiaries of this. “The genius of our political system”, she says, ”is that

it has evolved a civilised machinery for keeping blood off the streets. It’s called Parliament, and

political leaders are warlords in harness”. We should not be surprised if some of the individuals in

12

the system, like Slipper or Thomson, behave badly. Nor is that bad behaviour of untrustworthy

characters any sort of inherent flaw in the system or harbinger of its decline. Amanda wonders “about

those people who routinely disparage politics and politicians. Have they never sat on a company

board, or the committee of a sporting club, or a school’s parents and friends executive? What lotus

land are they living in, and when can I move there?”

Senator John Faulkner pointed out in a speech in 2012 that “the politics of distrust are easy.” He

narrated an amusing story about the so-called “Birthers” in the United States whose reaction to the

election of Barack Obama was not to question his politics or policies, but to undermine the very

legitimacy of his election as President. In their fantasy, Barack Obama was born outside the United

States, by virtue of an incredibly complicated and extensive conspiracy between the Hawaiian

department of health, his parents and grandparents, American Customs and Immigration, and

Hawaiian state officials, all of whom contrived to conceal that he was actually born in Hawaii. This

fantasy has taken such hold in the United States that 13% of all adults and 23% of Republican voters

believe that it’s true.

Faulkner is concerned at this growing trend in western democracies for political parties to respond to

defeat by denying the legitimacy of the system itself and the integrity of the democratic process, as a

way of deflecting their own failure and the failure of their policies to gain support in democratic

elections. What is needed is for a better informed population about the realities of living the

democratic ideal – that governing means compromise, and that it is never possible to achieve

perfection.

In November 1947, Winston Churchill as leader of the conservative Opposition, uttered these famous

words in Parliament:

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the

worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

It is precisely because of this inherent imperfection that civics education is important. If we are to

build trust in our democratic system and the institutions which uphold it, then it is essential that we

have a very realistic understanding of how politics works and why it is imperfect, frustrating, slow,

and seemingly conducted by an unruly rabble of tremendously imperfect egotists.

13

Amanda Lohrey pointed out that Paul Keating must have understood this, because he inaugurated a

program of civics education which was ultimately implemented by the Howard Government, but on

an optional basis. This “Discovering Democracy” program was found by independent evaluations

not to have been used by 70 per cent of teachers, because they were either not trained or did not feel

confident to use it.

There has been some progress since then. Civics education is a component of the current curriculum,

and is intended to be part of the new national curriculum. A 2008 national declaration on education

goals for young Australians included references to democracy and participation in Australia’s civic

life.

However, despite some civics education, the level of students’ knowledge is not translating to trust in

government or political institutions. It is also not translating into a dedication to the democratic

institutions which uphold our liberal democratic society, and is not translating into an interest in

actually participating in the political process.

The implementation of civics programs in our educational system therefore needs to be done very

carefully so that teachers not only understand the issues, but understand how engage students in the

democratic process, and importantly, to manage their expectations. The evidence at the moment

suggests we have a long way to go in this goal.

Does this lack of interest in the democratic system mean that young Australians are apathetic in

general? Is there anything inherent in the nature of this younger generation that should lead us to

general hand-wringing and despair?

It is the way of all older generations to wring their hands at the failings of the younger generation.

But there are several studies which suggest that, contrary to popular conceptions, the younger

generation are far from disengaged from their rapidly-evolving society.

Both Australian and international studies have observed young peoples’ increasing participation in

community-based or internet action, on issues like the environment, human rights or ethical

consumerism.

14

The Australian civics assessment study in 2010 asked students how important they felt it was to take

part in various activities, from activities to protect the environment, promoting human rights,

learning about political issues in the media, supporting a political party or even discussing politics.

[Slide 20]

In terms of political engagement, the results were pointing in the same direction as those from the

international studies: Australian students are disengaged from the political process and not interested

in participating, discussing or learning about politics:

• Only 18% thought that learning about political issues in the press was important

• Only 10% thought that supporting a political party was important and

• Discussing politics was right at the bottom of the list, at 6% who thought it very important.

However, the study found that more than a quarter of Year 10 students thought that taking part in

activities to protect the environment, or to promote human rights, was ‘very important’.

[Slide 21] These findings about Australian schoolchildren and their attitudes to social and civic

engagement are reinforced by other research in other western societies.

A new study, commissioned by the National Citizen Service in the United Kingdom and conducted

by respected social research institution and think tank, Demos, was published just a couple of weeks

ago. It looked at the defining attitudes, characteristics and aspirations of teenagers aged 14-17 years

old today, those who are at the tail end of the Y-Generation and therefore the link between Gen Y and

the next generation.

Common stereotypes of teenagers and more broadly, Gen Y, abound, whether in the UK, the US,

Europe, or here. They are not positive.

They have been described as “at best, feckless and at worst, feral”, lazy, apathetic, selfish, entitled

whiners, narcissistic, binge drinkers, the generation which wins trophies just for turning up at sport.

Sound familiar?

This Demos report goes a long way towards debunking those stereotypes. It was a significant survey,

not only of 1000 teenagers themselves, but of 500 of their teachers and deputy school heads.

15

Today’s British teenagers, the report finds, are less engaged with traditional politics than previous

generations. However, they are more likely to be engaged with social issues, both global and local,

than previous generations of teenagers. They are either as likely or more likely to volunteer for good

causes and organisations. They are more or as likely to express their political opinions creatively

through art, film and music, to sign political petitions or set up their own socially motivated project.

These findings are reinforced by the Pew Research Center in its US survey in 2012 on Civic

Engagement in the Digital Age.

[Slide 22] These American data suggest that young social media users actually have quite high

participation levels in civic activities – the dark blue columns are the 18-29s, and they range from the

25% who might follow politicians on social media, to 33% who post links to political stories, or a high

42% who post thoughts on civic issues.

Another 2012 Pew study on civic engagement of Americans in the digital age found that younger

Americans are just as likely as older Americans to engage in political activities, and are much more

likely to be politically active on social networking sites than in other ways (such as face to face).

It will not surprise you that this generation’s social activism is expressed in different ways and

through different channels than in the past.

I refer, of course, to the ubiquitous social media.

[Slide 23] Just to take a quick look at the sheer numbers involved here. Half the Australian

population – 12.8 million people - are on Facebook. Half are on YouTube. Blog sites like WordPress

and Blogspot are communication vehicles for significant numbers of Australians. Twitter is growing.

Photo-sharing sites like Tumblr and Instagram are building their user-bases.

Many of our children are on one or all of these.

[Slide 24] The Demos study found that substantial numbers of young people use social media to

become engaged with social issues. Nearly 40 per cent had signed petitions online, almost 30 per cent

had used social media to raise awareness for a cause, and one in five had donated money online.

16

But what is clear from the evidence is that the political conversation has failed to make an impression

on this generation.

Many of you may be aware of this next sobering statistic.

Just before the last Federal election, there were approximately half a million 18-24 year olds not on the

electoral roll. There are only around 2 million Australians in that age bracket. That is, one in four 18-

24 year olds are not even enrolled to vote.

And they make up a third of all voters of any age missing from the electoral roll.

Some commentators, like Ron Fournier in The Atlantic, have warned of a ‘brain drain’ in politics and

the civil service as Baby boomers retire, and GenY look elsewhere to make their mark.

Party membership is on the decline, both here and in other established western democracies. As

journalist Jacqueline Maley presaged before the Labor party conference in 2011: “Mega-litres of bad

coffee will be consumed, important decisions about party policy will be mostly pre-determined, and

Australians under the age of 30 won't care about any of it.”

[Slide 25] So what are we to make of all of this? And when we have made something of it, what is to

be done?

Is democracy losing supporters because it is being taken for granted after decades of prosperity and a

lack of serious ideological competition?

Are other, more authoritarian, forms of government seen as viable options, given their economic

successes?

Is it the tone of the debate which has turned Australians, particularly young Australians, off

democracy?

Or is it a failing of our education system or the content of the conversation and debate about

democracy in our modern society?

17

It is, perhaps, a combination of all of these. However, looking at the list, there are only a couple over

which we have any effective prospects of control.

Firstly, to disillusionment with the current level of political discourse.

[Slide 26] All the evidence suggests that there is some degree of switching off from the political

discussion because the tone of the debate has deteriorated.

I’m not suggesting the tone of debate couldn’t be improved, or at least, its wit.

But is it really so different from the politics of the past?

Andrew Leigh, Labor MP and currently Shadow Assistant Treasurer, in a speech here on civility and

democracy last year, conducted an interesting analysis of uncivil language in Parliament, by trawling

through Hansard over the decades for the number of times the particular words “liar/liars” or

“unparliamentary” were used, as common and most basic indicators of incivility in the House. He

found that the most uncivil years in Parliament, on this basis, were in the early 1950s, the late 1970s

and the early 1990s. Today’s parliament did not rate.

Mr Leigh also pointed out that Australians have never held their politicians in terribly high regard.

He referred to this speech drawn from Hansard parliamentary transcripts:

“The standard of debate and discussion is appallingly low. The intelligence and purposefulness of those

taking part is less than evident. No country deserves politicians as bad as these.”

That was said by one Craig McGregor, MP, in 1966. There’s nothing new in our lack of respect for our

modern elected representatives.

Mr Leigh also referred to some of the famous political insults in the 90s. I’ve done a bit of my own

research:

Keating likened John Hewson’s performance to being “flogged with a warm lettuce”. When Hewson

asked Keating why he wouldn’t call an early election, Keating replied, “The answer is, mate, because I

want to do you slowly.”

18

Of John Howard, dubbed “That old desiccated coconut”, Keating said: “he is the greatest job and

investment destroyer since the bubonic plague.”

Of course neither the insults nor the wit are confined to one side of politics.

Peter Costello parried with the Labor government about the thought of Labor taking power: “That is

enough to put me into a cold sweat. If I look tired it is because I have thought of that in the middle of

the night.”

John Howard made a few mild-mannered insults of his own: this one on Kevin Rudd during a debate

on sending military trainers to Iraq: “I think he's getting a bit full of himself, I mean this is Mr Rudd

walking both sides of the street – ‘each way bet Kevin’".

Wilson Tuckey called Kim Beazley a “fat so-and-so”. Kim Beazley told Wilson Tuckey to “take [his]

tablets”.

Politicians have always insulted each other. Some insults, like calling someone a ‘fat so-and-so”, are

below the belt. But I don’t think it is this sort of behaviour that undermines our democracy.

[Slide 27] I think Senator Faulkner is close to the mark when he cites the sometimes hyperbolic

criticisms of the former Labor minority government as being an illegitimate government simply by

virtue of that minority, despite the fact that Australia had 13 previous minority governments since

Federation, under Barton, Deakin, Watson, Reid, Fisher, Hughes, Scullin, Menzies, Fadden and

Curtin. The Gillard government was simply the 14th.

What this points to is a need for a better civics education. A way to explain to younger generations

about the democratic system we value, how it works, and why, by working perfectly, it will always

be imperfect. About the Westminster System, separation of powers and independent judiciary. About

why the other civil liberties we value – our free press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,

freedom of association, right to a fair trial – are at risk if we do not have a democratic system which

makes our governments accountable. The Economist article this week neatly précis-ed the 19th century

political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville, saying “democracies always look weaker than they really are:

they are all confusion on the surface but have lots of hidden strengths”. But it also argued that if we

19

are to keep our democracies alive, they must be assiduously nurtured when young, and carefully

maintained when they are mature.

[Slide 28] The hardest part of this will be finding ways to engage younger generations in this

discussion in ways they can relate to. It will mean talking to them in ways they can understand, and

in places they can be found. That means, among other things, through the new media.

The Australian Electoral Commission has finally taken the bold step of allowing online enrolment. In

the five weeks before closing off enrolments before the 2013 election, 830,000 online enrolment

applications were received by the AEC. Online enrolment has been a huge step forward in improving

the electoral engagement of youth. One thing that hasn’t improved, though, is the informal vote,

which this year at 6% was the highest it’s been in 30 years. The number of ‘blank’ ballot papers

doubled between the 2007 and 2010 elections.

This is a small indication of the much bigger task ahead for government and educators, and that is to

find ways to speak to young people about the issues they care about, and finding ways to link that

conversation with democracy and political engagement. The first part is not that hard; young people

can be found online, in volunteer groups, in social media campaigns. The hard part is bridging the

gap between their preferred fora of engagement with social issues, and the traditional civil and

political arenas.

One such bridge might be Youth Parliaments. While the YMCA runs youth parliaments in every state

in Australia, and an Indigenous one, there is no federal government initiative that I know of engaging

Australian students in federal politics. The Greens ran a pretty good policy in the last election which

proposed opening up Federal Parliament for a sitting day for a special youth question time, and

partnering selected youth participants with MPs and Senators as mentors.

That’s one idea.

The Economist put up another, using the example of the Finnish government which has mandated

that if citizens are able to garner 50,000 electronic signatures for any initiative, it must come before

Parliament for review. They call it E-democracy.

20

Another step might be to stop lamenting and berating the disengagement of this generation, and start

working with the good things we know about them. It might give us more traction.

In 2007 the New York Times ran the winning essay from its College Essay contest. It was entitled

“Coming of Age in Cyberspace”, written by a senior at an Ivy League university on the East Coast of

America. The young student wrote of her parents’ incomprehension at her cohort’s lack of

rebelliousness and the absence of their counterculture, seeing these as signs of their apathy.

She argued that just because her generation of students isn’t engaged in traditional modes of

counterculture doesn’t mean they aren’t driving change.

She points out that the driving force for cultural change today is the future of technology. The Y

Generation is the one driving that change, using new technologies to reshape the world. Her

generation is not given credit for that change, though: it is seen as the ‘impact of technology’ rather

than the ‘impact of her generation’.

[Slide 29] So let’s give them some credit. When you think about it, it is because Gen Y uses social

media that politicians, businesses, civil society organisations, even crusty old diplomats, are getting

on facebook and twitter. Hillary Clinton even had a famous chat on Tumblr. Like it or not, the picket

line has been replaced with an online petition, captioned photographs and facebook likes.

The new media expert Clay Shirky wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs about harnessing the power of

these tools to build civil society and the public sphere, in the same way that the printing press helped

the reforms of Martin Luther and pushed along the enlightenment and the scientific revolution.

I don’t have the answers, but want to leave you with this thought. Rather than fight these changes, we

need to go with them. And not with a sigh of resignation or resistance, but with enthusiasm. Admire

the new media as the digital town hall, a place of free assembly, community coordination and open

conversations.

Embracing this generation and engaging in conversations on their terms may be the only way to

preserve democracy for future generations.

[Slide 30]

21

Are Australians disenchanted with democracy?

Alex Oliver Director of polling

March 2014

Lowy Institute Polls in other countries – views on democracy

53 62

70

25 16

21

21 17

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per c

ent

For someone like me,it doesn't matter whatkind of governmentwe have

In somecircumstances, a non-democraticgovernment can bepreferable

Democracy ispreferable to anyother kind ofgovernment

Views on democracy

53 62

70 60

25 16

21

23

21 17

6 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per c

ent

For someone like me, itdoesn't matter what kindof government we have

In some circumstances,a non-democraticgovernment can bepreferable

Democracy is preferableto any other kind ofgovernment

Lowy Institute Poll 2013 – views on democracy - all Australians

59

26

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total

Per c

ent

For someone like me, itdoesn't matter what kindof government we have

In some circumstances,a non-democraticgovernment can bepreferable

Democracy is preferableto any other kind ofgovernment

18-29s vs the rest

62 48

25

27

11 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30+ 18-29s

Per c

ent

For someone like me, itdoesn't matter what kindof government we have

In some circumstances, anon-democraticgovernment can bepreferable

Democracy is preferableto any other kind ofgovernment

Support for democracy in other countries

• All age groups • Youth

Reasons?

• Democracy the victim of its own success? • Capitalism and consumerism? • Successful non-democracies in our region? • Disillusionment with the political discourse? • Civics education?

Reasons?

• “democracy the victim of its own success” ?

Image: fickr user Tadeej, creative commons licence

Freedom House, Freedom in the world 2013

Reasons?

• “Democracy the victim of its own success” ? • Capitalism and consumerism?

Image: “A shopping haven” fickr user WanderingtheWorld, creative commons licence

Reasons?

• “Democracy the victim of its own success” ? • Capitalism and consumerism? • Successful non-democracies in our region?

Image: “Yet more people” fickr user beltzner, creative commons licence

Reasons?

• Disillusionment with political discourse?

Image: Flickr user Toni Brient, creative commons licence

Reasons?

• Disillusionment with political discourse

Trends in Australian political opinion, Australian Election Study 1987-2013, ANU

internet

internet

Attitudes to federal elections

57%

34%

6% Noticeablyworse

Not muchdifferent

Noticeablybetter

Source: Citizens’ Agenda, National Survey of Voters Centre for Advancing Journalism, May 2013

Tone of the political debate - 2013

Source: Citizens’ Agenda, National Survey of Voters Centre for Advancing Journalism, May 2013

Level of confidence in institutions - adults

Level of trust in institutions – school children

Image: courtesy of Auspic, Parliament House, Canberra

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, National Assessment Civics and Citizenship Program Yrs 6 and 10 Report 2010

Year 10

Media

Australian political parties

Australian parliament

State/ territory

parliament Law

courts Police Completely 6 3 9 7 15 26 Quite a lot 21 28 42 44 50 44 TOTAL TRUST 27 31 51 51 65 70 A little 52 52 39 40 28 20 Not at all 21 16 10 10 7 9

Level of trust in institutions – school children

Reasons?

• Civics education

Image: TEDx Canberra, creative commons licence

Source: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010

Year 10 students % saying ‘very important’

Taking part in activities to protect the environment

31%

Taking part in activities promoting human rights

25%

Learning about political issues in the newspaper, radio, TV [etc…]

18%

Supporting a political party 10%

Discussing politics 6%

Today’s youth: social and political engagement

Today’s youth: social and political engagement

• Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (National Assessment Civics and Citizenship Program)

• Demos – UK • Pew – US • Australian Electoral Commission

Source: Pew Internet ‘Social Media and Political Engagement” October 2012

Social media and political engagement

Total users Facebook 12.8 m YouTube 12 m WordPress 5.7m Tumblr 4.4 m Blogspot 3.0 m Twitter 2.5 m Instagram 1.6 m

Sources: Social media statistics Australia, socialmedianews.com.au; and AEC report on Social Media, Youth Participation and Australian Elections, November 2012

Social media and political engagement

• Democracy the victim of its own success • Capitalism and consumerism • Successful non-democracies in our region • Disillusionment with the political discourse • Civics education

Image: Flickr user Pennstatenews, Creative commons licence

The way forward:

• Raise the tone?

Image: courtesy of Auspic, Parliament House, Canberra

The way forward:

• Raise the tone?

• Education?

Image: Flickr user Leorex, Creative commons licence

The way forward:

• Raise the tone?

• Education?

• Role of the new

media? Image: Flickr user Adam Scotti, Creative commons licence

The way forward:

• Raise the tone?

• Education?

• Role of the new

media?

Texts from Hillary, tumblr.com, original image Diana Walker, TIME